Federal Register / Vol. 71, No.
96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules 28821
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in subtitle VII,
part A, subpart III, section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this proposed AD and placed it in the
AD docket. See the ADDRESSES section
for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 May 17, 2006 Jkt 208001
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2006–24793;
Directorate Identifier 2006–NM–056–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by June 19, 2006.
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to Airbus A330, A340–
200, and A340–300 airplanes, certificated in
any category; all serial numbers; except for
airplanes which have received both Airbus
modification 47249 and Airbus modification
53383 in production.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from several reports of
full or partial loss of certain blow-down
panels of the wing leading edges during
flight. We are issuing this AD to prevent
damage to the airplane and hazards to
persons or property on the ground.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Replacement
(f) Within 56 months after the effective
date of this AD, replace the landing
assemblies of certain blow-down panels of
the wing leading edges with new, improved
landing assemblies; in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus
Service Bulletin A330–57–3091; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A340–57–4100; both dated
October 25, 2005; as applicable.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(g)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, Transport Airplane Directorate,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested in accordance with
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with § 39.19 on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify the
appropriate principal inspector in the FAA
Flight Standards Certificate Holding District
Office.
Related Information
(h) The European Aviation Safety Agency
airworthiness directive 2006–0048, dated
February 16, 2006, also addresses the subject
of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 9,
2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–7560 Filed 5–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2005–22630; Directorate
Identifier 2001–NM–323–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model
A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R
Series Airplanes, and Model C4–605R
Variant F Airplanes (Collectively Called
A300–600 Series Airplanes); and
Airbus Model A310–200 and –300
Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM);
reopening of comment period.
SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier
NPRM for an airworthiness directive
(AD) that applies to all Airbus Model
A300 B4–600, B4–600R, and F4–600R
series airplanes, and Model C4–605R
Variant F airplanes (collectively called
A300–600 series airplanes); and A310–
200 and –300 series airplanes. The
original NPRM would have required a
one-time inspection of the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA),
corrective actions if necessary, and
follow-on repetitive tasks. The original
NPRM resulted from reports of THSAs
that have reached their design
operational life. This operational life
can be extended provided an initial
inspection and follow-on repetitive
tasks are accomplished. This action
revises the original NPRM by revising
the initial compliance time. It also
allows the component maintenance
manual as an alternative repair method.
We are proposing this supplemental
NPRM to extend the operational life of
the THSA to prevent a possible failure
of high-time THSAs, which could result
in reduced controllability of the
airplane.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this supplemental NPRM by June 12,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Use one of the following
addresses to submit comments on this
supplemental NPRM.
• DOT Docket Web site: Go to
http://dms.dot.gov and follow the
instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
• Government-wide rulemaking Web
site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
18MYP1
 28822 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
• Mail: Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590.
• Fax: (202) 493–2251.
• Hand Delivery: Room PL–401 on
the plaza level of the Nassif Building,
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Contact Airbus, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France,
for service information identified in this
supplemental NPRM.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas Stafford, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington
98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–1622;
fax (425) 227–1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
We invite you to submit any relevant
written data, views, or arguments
regarding this supplemental NPRM.
Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include
the docket number ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
2005–22630; Directorate Identifier
2001–NM–323–AD’’ at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this supplemental NPRM. We
will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this
supplemental NPRM in light of those
comments.
We will post all comments submitted,
without change, to http://dms.dot.gov,
including any personal information you
provide. We will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this supplemental NPRM. Using the
search function of that Web site, anyone
can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including the name of
the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT’s complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477–78), or you may visit
http://dms.dot.gov.
Examining the Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov, or in
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
person at the Docket Management
Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The Docket
Management Facility office (telephone
(800) 647–5227) is located on the plaza
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 May 17, 2006 Jkt 208001
level in the Nassif Building at the DOT
street address stated in ADDRESSES.
Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after the Docket
Management System receives them.
Discussion
We proposed to amend 14 CFR part
39 with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) for an airworthiness directive
(AD) (the ‘‘original NPRM’’). The
original NPRM would have applied to
all Airbus Model A300 B4–600, B4–
600R, and F4–600R series airplanes, and
Model C4–605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called A300–600 series
airplanes); and A310–200 and –300
series airplanes. The original NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on
October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58352). The
original NPRM proposed to require a
one-time inspection of the trimmable
horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA),
corrective actions if necessary, and
follow-on repetitive tasks.
Comments
We have considered the following
comments on the original NPRM.
Request To Withdraw Proposed AD
According to a comment submitted
through the Air Transport Association
(ATA) on behalf of its member
American Airlines, the original NPRM is
unnecessary and would impose
excessive and inappropriate regulatory
requirements. American Airlines alleges
that the original NPRM does not address
the failure or safe operation of the
subject THSA but instead addresses the
manufacturer’s failure to do its
administrative duty—to adequately
define the required maintenance and
service life limitations of the component
in the maintenance planning document
(MPD). Because there have been no
reports of failed THSAs on affected
airplanes, the commenter concludes that
the scope of the original NPRM extends
beyond addressing a specific unsafe
condition, and argues that operation
beyond a design service goal does not
necessarily constitute an airworthiness
concern. American Airlines asserts that
corresponding French airworthiness
directive 2001–242(B), dated June 27,
2001, ‘‘more appropriately acts as a
temporary bridging document in the
absence of the necessary MPD data.’’
We infer that the commenter requests
that we withdraw the original NPRM.
We disagree.
First, this supplemental NPRM does
not differ from the French airworthiness
directive or service information (except
for the source of repair approval
explained in paragraph (g) of the
supplemental NPRM).
PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702
Second, an unsafe condition has been
identified: Failure of the THSA could
result in reduced controllability of the
airplane. The THSA on the affected
airplanes was designed for a specified
operational life; some THSAs installed
on those airplanes have reached this
operational limit. The DGAC has
mandated an inspection and
maintenance program to maintain the
THSA’s design reliability objective
beyond its original operational life. In
consonance with the DGAC, we find it
necessary to require the actions as
proposed. We find no basis to withdraw
the proposed AD.
Request To Revise Repair Requirements
This same commenter requests that
we revise the proposed requirement to
obtain FAA or DGAC approval for
repairs. American Airlines notes that
there is no language in Airbus Service
Bulletin A300–27–6044 or the French
airworthiness directive or Goodrich
Service Bulletin 47142–27–11 that
proposes the need for regulatory
oversight of repair actions. American
Airlines adds that the original NPRM
provides no justification for the
requirement. According to the
commenter, the THSA Component
Maintenance Manual (CMM) does
provide the necessary instructions for
returning a unit to serviceable
condition. The commenter reports that
the airline is currently ‘‘complying with
the DGAC requirements’’ and that the
repair criterion was approved by the
OEM (original equipment manufacturer)
and Airbus, and was satisfactory to the
DGAC.
We infer that the commenter requests
that we revise paragraph (g) to require
repair in accordance with the CMM. We
concur. We have reviewed TRW
Aeronautical Systems/Lucas Aerospace
CMM 27–44–13, dated September 14,
2001, and have determined that it
contains the necessary repair
information. We have revised paragraph
(g) in this supplemental NPRM to
consider this information an approved
method for the repair.
Request To Incorporate Additional
Service Information
The same commenter would like to
ensure that we are aware of Airbus
Operators Information Telex (OIT),
Reference SE 999.0074/05/BB, dated
August 3, 2005, and that the contents of
the OIT are reflected in the final rule, if
applicable. The OIT determines the
operational life of the THSA at 65,000
flight hours or 40,000 flight cycles or 25
years.
We have reviewed the OIT, as well as
Revision 01, dated October 28, 2005,
E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM 18MYP1
 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
which informs operators that a new life
limit of 25 years applies to the THSA.
In concurrence with the DGAC, we have
determined that this 25-year life limit
must be applied. We have revised
paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) in this
supplemental NPRM accordingly.
Request for Credit for Prior Inspection
Paragraph (g) of the original NPRM
would require an inspection before the
THSA accumulates 47,000 total flight
hours, or within a grace period of 600
flight hours. The same commenter
requests that we revise paragraph (g) to
provide credit for the demonstrated
prior accomplishment of the inspection
for any THSA inspected and approved
for the revised operational life of 65,000
hours or 40,000 cycles. The commenter
states that including this language
would avoid the necessity to pursue
accomplishment credit through the
alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) process.
We find it unnecessary to revise
paragraph (g). The language ‘‘unless the
actions have already been done’’
specified in paragraph (e) in this
supplemental NPRM obviates the need
to repeat the inspection.
Request To Revise Cost Estimate
The same commenter suggests that we
revise the ‘‘Estimated Costs’’ table to
Action Work hours
Inspection ....................
Repetitive follow-on
tasks.
Authority for This Rulemaking
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in subtitle VII,
part A, subpart III, section 44701,
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:13 May 17, 2006 Jkt 208001
reflect actual operator experience. The
commenter reports that the proposed
inspection takes at least 8 work hours
based on American Airlines’ experience,
rather than 3 hours as the original
NPRM states. The commenter adds that
it was necessary to replace the $6,082
elastic claw stop because of hydraulic
fluid ingress. The commenter states that
all operators will likely encounter the
same results, and requests that we
include this cost in the final rule.
We acknowledge the commenter’s
concerns but don’t agree to change the
cost estimate. The amount of time for
the inspection will vary among
operators. The cost estimate specified in
the original NPRM reflects the work
hour estimate provided by the
manufacturer. Further, we do not agree
to include the cost of the elastic claw
stop. The commenter did not specify the
percentage of the fleet that required a
replaced elastic claw stop. The
requirement to replace it is conditional
based on the inspection findings. The
information in the Costs of Compliance
section in an AD action is limited to the
cost of actions actually required by the
AD. That section does not consider the
costs of conditional actions (e.g.,
‘‘repair, if necessary’’). Regardless of AD
direction, those actions would be
required to correct an unsafe condition
ESTIMATED COSTS
Average labor
Parts Cost per airplane
rate per hour
3 $80 None required .... $240 ...........................
12 80 $0 ....................... $960, per inspection
cycle.
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
Regulatory Findings
We have determined that this
proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the
national Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that the proposed regulation:
1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866;
2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
3. Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
28823
identified in an airplane and ensure
operation of that airplane in an
airworthy condition, as required by the
Federal Aviation Regulations.
Revised Labor Rate
After the original NPRM was issued,
we reviewed the figures we have used
over the past several years to calculate
AD costs to operators. To account for
various inflationary costs in the airline
industry, we find it necessary to
increase the labor rate used in these
calculations from $65 per work hour to
$80 per work hour. The cost impact
information, below, reflects this
increase in the specified hourly labor
rate.
FAA’s Determination and Proposed
Requirements of the Supplemental
NPRM
One of the changes discussed above
expands the scope of the original
NPRM; therefore, we have determined
that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional
opportunity for public comment on this
supplemental NPRM.
Costs of Compliance
The following table provides the
estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this supplemental NPRM.
Number of
U.S.-reg. Fleet cost
airplanes
146 $35,040
146 $140,160, per inspec-
tion cycle.
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
We prepared a regulatory evaluation
of the estimated costs to comply with
this supplemental NPRM and placed it
in the AD docket. See the ADDRESSES
section for a location to examine the
regulatory evaluation.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part
39 as follows:
18MYP1
 28824 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 96 / Thursday, May 18, 2006 / Proposed Rules
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) amends § 39.13
by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):
Airbus: Docket No. FAA–2005–22630;
Directorate Identifier 2001–NM–323–AD.
Comments Due Date
(a) The FAA must receive comments on
this AD action by June 12, 2006.
Approved Airbus service bulletin version for actions done before the
Required Airbus service bulletin
A300–27–6044, Revision 04, dated A300–27–6044, Revision 02, dated August 26, 2000; or Revision 03,
September 10, 2001. dated June 28, 2001.
A310–27–2089, Revision 02, dated A310–27–2089, Revision 01, dated August 25, 2000 ..........................
June 28, 2001.
Inspection
(g) At the applicable time specified in
paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a
detailed inspection of specified components
of the THSA in accordance with paragraph
1.E.(2)(a) and the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin. Repair any discrepancy before
further flight in accordance with a method
approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane
Directorate, FAA; or the Direction Générale
de l’Aviation Civile (DGAC) (or its delegated
agent). TRW Aeronautical Systems/Lucas
Aerospace Component Maintenance Manual
27–44–13, dated September 14, 2001, is one
acceptable method for the repair.
(1) If the flight hours accumulated on the
THSA can be positively determined: Inspect
at the earlier of:
(i) Before the accumulation of 47,000 total
flight hours on the THSA, or within 600
flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
(ii) Within 25 years since the THSA was
new or within 600 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
later.
(2) If the flight hours accumulated on the
THSA cannot be positively determined:
Inspect before the accumulation of 47,000
total flight hours on the airplane, or within
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with PROPOSALS
600 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a
detailed inspection is: ‘‘An intensive
examination of a specific item, installation,
or assembly to detect damage, failure, or
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:24 May 17, 2006 Jkt 208001
Affected ADs
(b) None.
Applicability
(c) This AD applies to all of the following
Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category:
Model A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620, and
B4–622 airplanes.
Model A300 B4–605R and B4–622R
airplanes.
Model A300 F4–605R and F4–622R
airplanes.
Model A300 C4–605R Variant F airplanes.
Model A310–203, –204, –221, and –222
airplanes.
Model A310–304, –322, –324, and –325
airplanes.
Unsafe Condition
(d) This AD results from reports of
trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuators
(THSAs) that have reached their design
TABLE 1.—SERVICE BULLETINS
effective date of this AD
irregularity. Available lighting is normally
supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying
lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface
cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.’’
Follow-on Repetitive Tasks
(h) After the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD: Do the repetitive
tasks in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions and at the
times specified in paragraph 1.E.(2)(b) of the
service bulletin, as applicable, except as
provided by paragraph (i) of this AD. The
repetitive tasks are valid only until the THSA
operational life exceeds 65,000 flight hours,
40,000 flight cycles, or 25 years, whichever
occurs first. Before the THSA is operated
beyond these extended life goals, it must be
replaced with a new THSA, except as
required by paragraph (i) of this AD.
THSA Replacement
(i) For any THSA, whether discrepant or
not, that is replaced with a new THSA:
Within 47,000 flight hours or 25 years,
whichever occurs first, after the THSA is
replaced, do the applicable tasks specified in
paragraph 1.E.(2)(a) and the Accomplishment
Instructions of the applicable service
bulletin. Thereafter repeat the tasks within
the repetitive intervals specified in paragraph
1.E.(2)(b) of the applicable service bulletin.
PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18MYP1.SGM
operational life. We are issuing this AD to
extend the operational life of the THSA to
prevent a possible failure of high-time units,
which could result in reduced controllability
of the airplane.
Compliance
(e) You are responsible for having the
actions required by this AD performed within
the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.
Service Bulletin References
(f) Unless otherwise specified in this AD,
the term ‘‘service bulletin,’’ as used in this
AD, means the applicable required service
bulletin identified in Table 1 of this AD. The
service bulletins refer to Goodrich Actuation
Systems Service Bulletin 47142–27–11,
Revision 3, dated April 25, 2005, as an
additional source of service information for
the required actions.
Airbus airplane model
A300 B4–601, B4–603, B4–620,
and B4–622.
A300 B4–605R and B4–622R.
A300 F4–605R and F4–622R.
A300 C4–605R Variant F.
A310–203, –204, –221, and –222.
A310–304, –322, –324, and –325.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
(j)(1) The Manager, International Branch,
ANM–116, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
(2) Before using any AMOC approved in
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19 on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
the appropriate principal inspector in the
FAA Flight Standards Certificate Holding
District Office.
Related Information
(k) French airworthiness directive 2001–
242(B), dated June 27, 2001, also addresses
the subject of this AD.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 8,
2006.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E6–7558 Filed 5–17–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
18MYP1